Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2Nd ... vs . Srimati Ashalata Parida, Wife Of Late ... on 21 August, 2009
In SBI v. Raj Kumar [(2010) 11 SCC 661 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S)
150] , elucidating the nature of the scheme of compassionate
appointments this Court observed: (SCC p. 664, para 8)
"8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate
grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an
exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services
should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing
6
(2021) 16 SCC 384
20
equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection
process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not
have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the
concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or
by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get
over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate
appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the
employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever
outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be
made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is
abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is
abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the
scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an
application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by
itself create a right in favour of the applicant.""
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
"... 2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide
while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground.
It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue.
As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly
on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode
of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the
Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other
procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post.
However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every
case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice
and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of
the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his
7
(1994) 4 SCC 138
21
family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases,
out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the
fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would
not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to
provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased
who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the
sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere
death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such
source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned
has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased,
and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment,
the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to
the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are
the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they
alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to
relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the
emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by
making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not
discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of
the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the
object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other
posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for
the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against
the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families
which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made
in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of
the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the
change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the
erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.
Canara Bank & Anr vs M. Mahesh Kumar on 15 May, 2015
5. An aspect examined by this judgment [Canara
Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 : (2015) 2 SCC
(L&S) 539] is as to whether a claim for compassionate
employment under a scheme of a particular year could be
decided based on a subsequent scheme that came into force
much after the claim. The answer to this has been
emphatically in the negative. It has also been observed that
the grant of family pension and payment of terminal benefits
18
cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment
assistance. The crucial aspect is to turn to the scheme itself to
consider as to what are the provisions made in the scheme for
such compassionate appointment."
State Of Haryana vs Hakim Singh And Others on 28 October, 2010
"...10. The policy to appoint a dependant family member of an
employee who has died-in-harness or has been medically rendered
unfit to perform further job, thereby leaving the family in utter penury,
is not of too distant an origin. Going by law reports, the policy seems to
have originated during the seventies of the last century and gained
momentum in the following decades with this Court laying down
guidelines from time to time for grant of compassionate appointment.
The rationale for such appointment has been explained in Haryana
State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh13 in the following words:
State Of Gujarat & Ors vs Arvindkumar T.Tiwari & Anr on 14 September, 2012
"... 16. It is trite to say that there cannot be any inherent right to
compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain
criteria, especially to provide succour to a needy family. This has to be
in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise,
unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively. [State of
Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, (2012) 9 SCC 545 : (2012) 2 SCC
(L&S) 795] Insofar as providing succour is concerned, unfortunately,
since the demise of the late father of the respondent, 11 years have
passed and really speaking, the aspect of providing succour to the
family immediately does not survive.
All India Reserve Bank Employees ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 23 April, 1965
24. We had the occasion of examining the issue of compassionate
appointment in a recent judgment in Indian Bank v. Promila [Indian
Bank v. Promila, (2020) 2 SCC 729 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 312] . We may
usefully refer to paras 3, 4, and 5 as under : (SCC p. 731)
"3. There has been some confusion as to the scheme
applicable and, thus, this Court directed the scheme
prevalent, on the date of the death, to be placed before this
Court for consideration, as the High Court appears to have
dealt with a scheme which was of a subsequent date.
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Anr vs B. Kishore on 6 April, 2011
In Union of India and Anr., vs. B. Kishore 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed as follows:-